2020 Democratic Nominee

[Aqua Buddha 14598]

2 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

What you're missing is that we already pay for all of it, and we do so at a much higher cost per capita. I recently had a similar conversation with a friend.  In the middle of it, he looked up the employer part of his premium for his family of 3.  It was $3200 a month on top of the 1200 he paid a month. He had never even bothered to look it up before. 

The money is already there. 

I get that.  The healthy pay for the sick.  It’s the basic model of insurance.  However, Medicare/Medicaid is severely strained as is.  Shouldn’t we shore that up first before nationalizing the insurance industry?

[GSU&UT 1798]

5 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

My wife (no pics) and I have voted Dem president in every election since 2000.  The fact that you’re running us off is kind of the point.

Time to make the switch then, Warren proposed a very similar plan and I bet you didn't complain about that.

I freaking pay over 10k a year for decent daycare here in the suburbs which is 9 percent of my income. It is a cost barrier and literally affects the outcome of kids aptitude if you look at any social science. It's not going to kill me to pay for this for everyone as a tax.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

Just now, Aqua Buddha said:

So, cradle to grave?

Difference is I’m paying into that old people system now.  In addition, you’re wanting me to bail people out of bad student loan situations.

I'm kind of with you on student loans. I'd change policy going forward, but I wouldn't pay off all existing student loan debt. More than any of the other policy initiatives, this punishes people who buckled down for a decade or two to pay their loans off. All I'd do is fund more LRAP's to encourage non profit work, and allow student loans to be included in bankruptcy. Would be nice to force the banks to take a share of the bankruptcy losses, but would be difficult to do contractually at this point. 

[Aqua Buddha 14598]

1 minute ago, GSU&UT said:

Time to make the switch then, Warren proposed a very similar plan and I bet you didn't complain about that.

I freaking pay over 10k a year for decent daycare here in the suburbs which is 9 percent of my income. It is a cost barrier and literally affects the outcome of kids aptitude if you look at any social science. It's not going to kill me to pay for this for everyone as a tax.

I didn’t like Warren either for the same reason.  Why don’t you cut back on some of your other expenses if day care is so onerous?

[Aqua Buddha 14598]

1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

I'm kind of with you on student loans. I'd change policy going forward, but I wouldn't pay off all existing student loan debt. More than any of the other policy initiatives, this punishes people who buckled down for a decade or two to pay their loans off. All I'd do is fund more LRAP's to encourage non profit work, and allow student loans to be included in bankruptcy. Would be nice to force the banks to take a share of the bankruptcy losses, but would be difficult to do contractually at this point. 

I completely agree there needs to be more public funding of higher ed, which reduces the demand for student loans.  (I’d also make the banks assume some risk.). A kid shouldn’t have to start out in life $75K in debt just to get into the middle class.

Student loan forgiveness basically has no guardrails.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

7 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

I get that.  The healthy pay for the sick.  It’s the basic model of insurance.  However, Medicare/Medicaid is severely strained as is.  Shouldn’t we shore that up first before nationalizing the insurance industry?

It's strained because it only enrolls the most expensive patients.  Medicare and Medicaid fund more end of life care than every other insurer combined. It needs to also enroll the healthy. Medicare for all would destrain the system by including healthy working adults and their children. Right now, Aetna execs use your premiums until 65 to fund their yachts. After you're 65, they dump you in Medicare. Fuck Aetna. None of your current premiums go toward funding your health care after retirement. They should. 

Edited February 24, 2020 by FondrenRoad

[Pam Cummings 9644]

7 hours ago, Bruh Man said:

Is this answer acceptable from somebody who's been running for president for 5 years and  fighting for m4a for forty years? Ugh...

 

I love though how there's never any hard hitting questions about paying for literally ANYTHING ELSE EVER

[bonnieblue 542]

1 minute ago, Aqua Buddha said:

So, cradle to grave?

Difference is I’m paying into that old people system now.  In addition, you’re wanting me to bail people out of bad student loan situations.

Daycare is just like housing and tuition costs. The costs have skyrocketed over the past few decades, while wages have not kept pace. There is only so much money in a paycheck to go around. The common response is "don't have kids you can't afford", which, yes, I agree.   I literally don't care about kids, at all, but I recognize that they are a necessary evil for things like sustaining population growth, keeping us competitive with research, technology, creating new tax payers to maintain infrastructure etc. Having kids has become an unaffordable proposition for most of the population, but if everyone bowed out, then our country would collapse (see Japan). This is why I liked Liz. Her plan was to put the onus on the extremely wealthy for daycare (and not just the upper middle class types who also struggle with this).  Our kids are the engines from which the wealthy derive their wealth. They should pay their fair share to educate and care for them.

[Pam Cummings 9644]

15 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

So, my taxes are paying off your student loans and taking care of your kids?  That’s awesome.

When people are paying more for childcare than their mortage, that's a problem. When people are choosing not to work because it saves them money on childcare, that's a problem. Less people having jobs doesn't seem good for the economy to me....

[Aqua Buddha 14598]

I could make the case that land use policy is the one issue that touches everything but that’s more of a local issue.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

3 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

When people are choosing not to work because it saves them money on childcare, that's a problem. Less people having jobs doesn't seem good for the economy to me....

Why? Supply/Demand would dictate that with less supply of labor, wages will increase. 

[GSU&UT 1798]

9 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

I didn’t like Warren either for the same reason.  Why don’t you cut back on some of your other expenses if day care is so onerous?

Because we literally don't have a choice, it's a second mortgage if me and my wife want to work full time, are you seriously this dense? We're paying more before we got a mortgage because it's cheaper than renting crappy house.

I don't care what you tell me, you're a Republican or libertarian because you're now using the "muh personal responsibility!!!" argument here.

[Pam Cummings 9644]

1 minute ago, Aqua Buddha said:

I could make the case that land use policy is the one issue that touches everything but that’s more of a local issue.

What's really frustrating is that, at least in a state like Texas, the "don't have kids you can't afford" attitude is usually coupled with a firm, anti-birth control, anti-abortion view.

[GSU&UT 1798]

To be clear I'm fine with paying that amount because unlime a lot of millennials me and my wife can afford this. However we then get to hear boomers lecture us about why we're not having enough kids as if they are actually in touch with how the world works in 2020. If you want to make an argument you can't have kids if you can't afford it thrn that's fine but we're going to have a major health crisis later where there's literally nowhere near enough people to take care of us elderly, you're seeing that in Japan to some degree.

[bonnieblue 542]

6 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

I could make the case that land use policy is the one issue that touches everything but that’s more of a local issue.

I will 100% agree with you on that

[Pam Cummings 9644]

9 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Why? Supply/Demand would dictate that with less supply of labor, wages will increase. 

Please help me understand how a household going from 2 incomes down to 1 is a positive thing. Like, this isn't the 50's where Ed can support everyone with his job at the factory.

Edited February 24, 2020 by Pam Cummings

[Dropout 355]

Might as well start posting these in the nominee thread. Bernie Sanders is your nominee.

Anyone show me one lie. Just one.

[GSU&UT 1798]

7 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

Please help me understand how a household going from 2 incomes down to 1 is a positive thing. Like, this isn't the 50's where Ed can support everyone with his job at the factory.

I assume he is being sarcastic.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11819]

32 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Why? Supply/Demand would dictate that with less supply of labor, wages will increase. 

In a vacuum, yes, but we don't live in one.  Instead jobs go offshore and to immigrants willing to work for lower wages.  

[Huckleberry 32885]

39 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

More than any of the other policy initiatives, this punishes people who buckled down for a decade or two to pay their loans off.

No it doesn't, this is absurd selfishness on a grand scale. Nobody is getting punished. My wife and I paid off our student loans, and you know what I think about younger people or even those in our generation having theirs forgiven? I think that's absolutely fantastic (particularly the younger generation).

My parents paid their own way through college working part-time as checkers at a Safeway.

I was able to pay my student loans off pretty easily and quickly by getting a job out of college and paying a reasonable amount each month.

Why is it harder for the current generation to do that?

My parents were in college at the very beginning of that chart. I was in college in the late '90s. So how did we get here? I'm lazy so I'll paste what I wrote elsewhere:

I think the argument that "my loans weren't forgiven so theirs shouldn't be either" is perhaps the least persuasive one I can imagine for multiple reasons.

1. Things were bad for me so they shouldn't be better for future generations is incredibly selfish and short-sighted as a base position.

2. Education loans are out of control due to the government handing them out for every education everywhere regardless of the potential ROI or caliber of the school. People want to preach personal responsibility, well guess what? The government is responsible for this mess just as much as the people who took out the loans, so why aren't people expecting the government to take responsibility?

3. Education loans are treated differently than other personal debt when it comes to discharging through bankruptcy. This is the government protecting the companies who underwrite these loans. Once again, the students are expected to be responsible but the companies, thanks to their lobbied politicians, are not expected to be responsible. "Don't take out a $100K loan for a literature degree!!!11!!" is a common talking point. Yeah, you can argue that's dumb from a financial perspective. Okay. But it's also dumb from the bank's financial perspective. Would you loan somebody $100K that you know won't be able to pay it back? No, that would be stupid. So why are the banks protected from their stupidity but not the students?

4. My parents worked their way through college and were able to pay for their education in the 1970s by working as checkers at Safeway. That is literally impossible these days. Kids these days are not lazier than we and our parents' generations were. The real problem is that they are faced with a different world and are playing on a field that has been tilted toward the college and banks.

5. Again: Banks failing because housing bubble created by poor lending practices bursts like economists knew it would? BAIL THEM OUT! Banks not making enough money because college is affordable? DEREGULATE TUITION TO DRIVE PRICES UP! Banks having problems getting paid for their stupid education lending practices? CHANGE THE LAW SO STUDENT LOANS CAN'T BE DISCHARGED THROUGH BANKRUPTCY! But if you're a student having trouble paying off your loan? TOUGH CRAP, TAKE SOME RESPONSIBILITY!

[GSU&UT 1798]

I'm here for the @Huckleberry schooling. You love to see it.

[bad_teammate 13208]

Going to be fun for everyone to finally unite behind a candidate and train their guns full-time on the MAGA CHUDs

[Pancho 44836]

 

[gmr548 16580]

I get that.  The healthy pay for the sick.  It’s the basic model of insurance.  However, Medicare/Medicaid is severely strained as is.  Shouldn’t we shore that up first before nationalizing the insurance industry?

Well you have been bitching about taxes paying for other people's benefit. How do you propose we "shore up" these programs?

[bad_teammate 13208]

1 minute ago, gmr548 said:

How do you propose we "shore up" these programs?

 

- Spend what you need to in the way that makes the most sense for the health of the nation
- Raise revenues to pay for the spending
- Keep a certain level of deficit/debt because it's healthy (as long as inflation/deflation are under control)

[Bruh Man 3160]

Warren grew up in the church and was a Sunday School teacher. With South Carolina coming up, this might be a good time to start letting people know about this. The campaign is looking a little funny to me right now for not adding this to her profile. For some reason she seems to still be trying to fight Bernie for the left. I've always felt that the clearer path for her was as a center-left candidate. Speak about your Christian upbringing and get these old black mamas on your side!

[GSU&UT 1798]

6 minutes ago, Bruh Man said:

Warren grew up in the church and was a Sunday School teacher. With South Carolina coming up, this might be a good time to start letting people know about this. The campaign is looking a little funny to me right now for not adding this to her profile. For some reason she seems to still be trying to fight Bernie for the left. I've always felt that the clearer path for her was as a center-left candidate. Speak about your Christian upbringing and get these old black mamas on your side!

She smartly didn't take the bait to trash Bernie in the last debate and instead decided to annihilate Bloomberg. I'm not sure if Steyer is on the debate stage tomorrow but if she wants to cut into support she could go after him or Biden. Steyer has dropped a TON of money running advertising in SC which has given him some big support.

Edited February 24, 2020 by GSU&UT

[Hank Kingsley 20960]

1 minute ago, GSU&UT said:

She smartly didn't take the bait to trash Bernie in the last debate and instead decided to annihilate Bloomberg. I'm not sure if Steyer is on the debate stage tomorrow but if she wants to cut into support she could go after him or Biden.

It was definitely "smart" of Warren to go after Bloomberg if she wants Bernie to be the nominee. 

Steyer is on the debate stage. 

 

 

[bad_teammate 13208]

can't wait until Biden, Buttigieg, and Warren all break out into competing versions of Glory, Glory Hallelujah on the debate stage while Bernie's shuffles side to side awkwardly

[GSU&UT 1798]

8 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

It was definitely "smart" of Warren to go after Bloomberg if she wants Bernie to be the nominee. 

Steyer is on the debate stage. 

 

 

Let's remind everyone last time she went at Bernie it only hurt her in the polling. Are you suggesting this is a winning strategy?

[Hank Kingsley 20960]

1 minute ago, GSU&UT said:

Let's remind everyone last time she went at Bernie it only hurt her in the polling. Are you suggesting this is a winning strategy?

She went after Bloomberg and finished 4th in Nevada. My point is that running cover for Bernie is not a "winning strategy" for her to be the nominee. 

 

[GSU&UT 1798]

2 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

She went after Bloomberg and finished 4th in Nevada. My point is that running cover for Bernie is not a "winning strategy" for her to be the nominee. 

 

Again, we have a data-point to suggest that this didn't help her last time. I'm sure Bernie will get much more focus tomorrow, we'll see if it helps her but I'm very skeptical.

[henrygandorf 29191]

54 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Going to be fun for everyone to finally unite behind a candidate and train their guns full-time on the MAGA CHUDs

is this a metaphor or a new progressive gun proposal?  either is fine by me. 

[Hank Kingsley 20960]

1 minute ago, GSU&UT said:

Again, we have a data-point to suggest that this didn't help her last time. I'm sure Bernie will get much more focus tomorrow, we'll see if it helps her but I'm very skeptical.

You want Bernie to win. You're commentary on what's "smart" for Warren is based on whatever helps Bernie. That's fine, but it's not correct.  

In order for Warren to actually win, she has to present herself as the option for people who don't want Bernie. And that only happens if she criticizes him and explains why she is different/better. 

 

[Hank Kingsley 20960]

Just due to money, this is gonna be Bernie vs. Bloomberg. 

Which is a good thing IMO. It will make it easier for liberals who don't like Bernie to fully support him over a piece of shit like Bloomberg. 

 

 

[workswithseed 2112]

50 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

can't wait until Biden, Buttigieg, and Warren all break out into competing versions of Glory, Glory Hallelujah on the debate stage while Bernie's shuffles side to side awkwardly

I figured more like this.

[SquishMitten 10408]

2 hours ago, Pam Cummings said:

Please help me understand how a household going from 2 incomes down to 1 is a positive thing. Like, this isn't the 50's where Ed can support everyone with his job at the factory.

If I'm understanding correctly, his argument is that reducing the labor force by ~50% would equate to an immediate increase in wages of ~50%. The math checks out!

[ClubWhatever 12144]

 I think the diversity effect in South Carolina is being overblown.  There's going to be a ton of white Republicans voting - way more than usual - and the demographic will end up looking almost like the general election.  A small portion of these whites may be pro-Trump saboteurs who overwhelmingly vote for Bernie; but I think most either did not for vote for Trump or did so begrudgingly and are looking for the most palatable (read: most conservative) alternative.

[Aqua Buddha 14598]

1 hour ago, gmr548 said:

Well you have been bitching about taxes paying for other people's benefit. How do you propose we "shore up" these programs?

Raise taxes to pay for them as is.  Long term care for olds is a huge expense right now in America and it's about to blow the fuck up.  How about we get ready for that instead of reengineer Medicare/Medicaid.

[burntorangebongos 10728]

38 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

In order for Warren to actually win, she has to present herself as the option for people who don't want Bernie. And that only happens if she criticizes him and explains why she is different/better. 

I disagree. She has said anyone is a better nominee than Bloomberg, so if we believe her on believing that then she can't go hard on Bernie since he has the better chance of beating him so far. But if she stays in and pounds on Bloomberg, she is going to win over Bloomberg's olds and Biden's. The Amy and Pete voters that see what Bloomberg is and hate him might swing her way. It is too early for her to go after Bernie, imo.

[Dbeasy 15052]

Def b and c. I do not believe there will be major new costs to a significant percentage of the population. That is how unbalanced the scale is. America doesn’t worry about costs when we want to go to war and start some killing. I won’t allow costs to make me believe we can’t do good for people instead.
Any costs to individuals that may actually feel it will be offset by the uplifting of an entire society by helping those that need it have access to things like healthcare and a higher education. That’s even if he can enact any of these proposals. He is the best shot though.
Idk if that was an answer you were looking for. Ask away.

I appreciate two Bernie Bro’s weighing in with a thought on this. It really helps to better understand the mindset and thinking.

While there are a lot of people on the right that simply have a very harsh attitude of “it’s all mine and I’ll be damned if I’m going to share any more than I have to”, I also believe that a big chunk of the right wouldn’t be so against some of the progressive policies if they felt they could trust politicians to make practical, thoughtful decisions that didn’t massively impact their income and wealth. Unfortunately no one on the right or left right now trusts any of our politicians, so instead everyone digs in and just resists.

[Dirk X West 772]

7 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

Unfortunately no one on the right or left right now trusts any of our politicians, so instead everyone digs in and just resists.
 

 

Can you remind us again which party has spent the better part of the last 4 decades trying to convince the general populace that government in all forms is inherently evil?

[bad_teammate 13208]

5 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

I also believe that a big chunk of the right wouldn’t be so against some of the progressive policies if they felt they could trust politicians to make practical, thoughtful decisions that didn’t massively impact their income and wealth.

Yep.

People respond to confidence and boldness. It will SHOCK you guys to hear this, but I'm (1) dumb and (2) very self-assured in real life. So while Factor 1 would seem to preclude any ability to get ahead, Factor 2 has been carrying me for decades and done so disturbingly well. (And yes, ladies, I know this makes you angry because you're more circumspect than the men around you and they get ahead of you because they are too dumb to know their flaws. I know. It's all true.)

If you apologize, you'll look like you have something to apologize for.

If you waffle and vacillate, you'll look like you're not sure that what you're saying is right.

If you say what you say and you act like it's obvious and you're supremely comfortable in it, the default human response is, "Oh, I guess that's fine then."

Do you trust the guy who is hemming and hawing or do you trust the guy who is assured? It's that simple.

[Hank Scorpio 17729]

9 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

 

I appreciate two Bernie Bro’s weighing in with a thought on this. It really helps to better understand the mindset and thinking.

While there are a lot of people on the right that simply have a very harsh attitude of “it’s all mine and I’ll be damned if I’m going to share any more than I have to”, I also believe that a big chunk of the right wouldn’t be so against some of the progressive policies if they felt they could trust politicians to make practical, thoughtful decisions that didn’t massively impact their income and wealth. Unfortunately no one on the right or left right now trusts any of our politicians, so instead everyone digs in and just resists.
 

 

That’s the stuff. Haven’t had a nice big hit of both sides in a while. 

[gmr548 16580]

Shaka Smart makes millions of dollars a year to quote Tony Robbins and lose a bunch of basketball games because that is true.

Have you no decency? Don't bring the cesspool that is Texas basketball to the CR.

[Huckleberry 32885]

That line made me look for a crying reaction. 

[Bruh Man 3160]

Here are NV turnout numbers from the last three Dem prez primaries.

'08:  118k
'16:  74k
'20:  100k

Only 4% of registered NV Democrats participated this year. 4%...

These numbers do not inspire confidence considering NV had a week of early voting for the first time ever and the population of NV has increased by 500k since '08. What's going on here?

Edited February 24, 2020 by Bruh Man

[David Dennison 18891]

 

[bad_teammate 13208]

27 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

It’s a huge problem, though, when it’s actually time to buckle down and you have some “fake it til you make it” blowhard in charge of things - as we have all seen.  Maybe someday we will get past trying to exploit psychological weaknesses of Americans to get elected and instead focus on finding someone who would actually be good for the position.

Get you a Bernie who can do both.

Bernie isn't an ignorant blowhard. He's got good policy people. He delegates authority very well. He's an extremely hard worker and people like him.

[hayden_horn 11362]

3 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

No it doesn't, this is absurd selfishness on a grand scale. Nobody is getting punished. My wife and I paid off our student loans, and you know what I think about younger people or even those in our generation having theirs forgiven? I think that's absolutely fantastic (particularly the younger generation).

My parents paid their own way through college working part-time as checkers at a Safeway.

I was able to pay my student loans off pretty easily and quickly by getting a job out of college and paying a reasonable amount each month.

Why is it harder for the current generation to do that?

My parents were in college at the very beginning of that chart. I was in college in the late '90s. So how did we get here? I'm lazy so I'll paste what I wrote elsewhere:

 

 

100% this. "things sucked for a section of our population for awhile, so we shouldn't make a policy change to make things better." terrible. that attitude could apply to the civil rights era. "if we give those blacks rights the rest of us have, it won't be fair to all those that got lynched!"

don't let perfection get in the way of progress.